1963 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (435 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 238 more horse power than 1963 Cadillac Sixty. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1963 Cadillac Sixty.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1963 Cadillac Sixty (582 Nm) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Mustang. (544 Nm). This means 1963 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | Sixty | Mustang |
Year Released | 1963 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 435 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 7000 RPM |
Torque | 582 Nm | 544 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |